Find a Lawyer

I.T.AS. NOS.1606/KB TO 1609/KB OF 2003, DECIDED ON 9TH MARCH, 2005. versus I.T.AS. NOS.1606/KB TO 1609/KB OF 2003, DECIDED ON 9TH MARCH, 2005.

Sections 13, 59, 62, 65 and 134 Total Income Tax Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Appellant / Reviewer has objected to the CIT (A) order for several years on the basis that the Assessing Officer assessed No approval was obtained from Under Section 13 (1) (c) of the Income Tax Ordinance, the Assessment Order, 1979, did not mention the approval of the Additional Commissioner of Inspection, which was required by law as the last time. (1) I mentioned. The assessment of section 13, 1979, of the Income Tax Ordinance, was established by the evidence that in response to the letter of the examining officer, the additional commissioner of inspection allowed the addition of section 13 (1) of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979, Which cannot be done by any means. As such, the sanctioning officer was unable to subscribe to the assessment order under section 65/62 for all the part that was required by law. The concurrent years of review, under which the observations by the CIT (A) regarding the production and non-production of books of accounts under the supplementary order, were ignored, were contradictory and contrary to the facts of the case, Because he had no justification. , Disputes raised by the Assisi were rejected and validated in addition to the corresponding diagnostic year and the assessment must be made for the remaining assessment years as there was no justification for the increase in defects as in all The inspection of the Additional Commissioner for the relevant year was done without prior approval (A), was vacant and was required under Section 13 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 us immigration advocates from Shemier lawyer